click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
the federal defense of marriage act, or d doma, and another involving california's proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in that state. for analysis into these historic cases, what's going to be a historic hearing, i want to bring in kinji yoshityoshito, professor of constitutional law at new york city. great to see you. >> good to see you. >> put prop 8 aside for a second. do you believe that the supreme court will strike down doma. this is what what you've said. walk me through your thinking on that one. >> y bet. so doma is a really narrow challenge insofar as what the statute does is it says for federal purposes marriages are defined between one man and one woman. so i think it might be best to clarify this by example. so you take edie windsor, a plaintiff coming out of new york who's going to be the plaintiff in this case. she was with another woman for 40 years. they got married in 2007. when her partner passed away, her wife passed away, for state purposes, in the eyes of new york state, she was next of kin. so her remains were released to edie. but for federal purposes, they were c
when they passed doma into law in 1996. i need to get your immediate reaction to the supreme court news this afternoon. >> well, i think it's very good for the advocates of marriage equality that the court took both of these issues up. the first issue is this question of the defense of marriage act. it was passed really in the middle of the night in 1996 and signed very reluctant lie by president clinton and e sin essentially says one state does not have to recognize the marriage equality rights another state may give. if you are married legally in the state of massachusetts and you happen to reside -- this is as a gay couple -- and you happen to reside in the state of california, the state of california does not need to recognize your massachusetts marriage, and as a result there are over 1,000 benefits that can be denied to a legally married gay couple if they happen to be living in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. my guess is the supreme court will declare that unconstitutional because there is a long tradition under the privileges and immunities clause of the constitutio
's start with doma. if that is struck down by the high court, thewill that be thed of conservatives' attempts of outlawing gay marriage? >> it is the mother of all federal laws to try to outlaw. it will be over it it's overturned. if social conservatives try to get smart about this stuff, looking for opportunities to play defense instead of offense, doma, which is a terrible law in my estimation, was an attempt to completely play offense. you can't do this anywhere in any state. we're going to pre-empt you before you try. i think social cons are in a much better position when they say, look, let's make it so the government can't compel us to do things privately we don't want to do. i think you'll see much more emphasis placed on that. the question will be more than what will the supreme court try to do because they don't want to be out in front of public opinion too much. it's going to be fascinating. >> and they've rarely been accused of doing that either. david, let's move on to prop 8 in california. if that's struck down, does that mean same-sex marriage is for all intensive purp
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)